Archive for the ‘Gender’ Category
The Garrick Club
Leave a commentThe Guardian’s recent exposé on the Garrick Club in London is troubling. It took a data breach for us to know who the club’s members are.
Not only is this a “gentlemen’s” club, it is also an elite club where state/government policies are discussed and made. As a man I do not have the resources to join and even if I did, I think it is unlikely that existing members would nominate me. I could at least try; but if I was female, it would be harder despite David Pannick KC’s best efforts to justify its existence. There is, argues Pannick, nothing in the language that bars women – even the word “gentleman” seemingly has a defence. Here is Pannick quoted in the Guardian article: “[t]he term ‘gentlemanly’ is plainly being used here in the sense of the meaning ‘[o]f a pastime, behaviour or thing’ that is ‘of high quality; excellent’”. I’m not about to buy that. It is not surprising that lawyers can offer such a defence as we discover that a large tranche of senior [read influential] figures in the profession are members. Many environmental campaigners, for example, have found themselves judged by them. And that raises bigger questions about the profession itself.
Picture: By Cambridge Law Faculty – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxB59qEi6i0, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=104993515
Unconscious bias
As a lecturer at a university, I am confronted on a daily basis with my own biases. After all, I’m a middle-aged white male in a relatively powerful position vis-a-vis my students (a discussion about relative-ness, is for another time). As a course leader, I am charged with achieving inclusivity targets (however it is measured) and widening participation. These are good things, but achieving them is very hard indeed. I’ve been on the training courses, studied exemplars and worked with knowledgeable colleagues. To some extent, it is not for us to define. One cannot wish into existence wider participation, for example, in a climate – economic and political – that is structurally biased against the very people we are trying to include.
Last week I was driving home listening to an edition of BBC Radio 4’s Analysis, entitled: Why are even women biased against women? As a white male, naturally, I’m looking to get off the hook. In my head, I can hear things like, “well, if women are biased against themselves then I’m ok”, etc. And so I listen. The programme is presented by former Times journalist, Mary-Ann Sieghart, but that is not significant other than her admitting to her own biases against women.
In the programme are two scenarios. I was listening whilst driving paying reasonable attention. I am mortified that I got caught out by both of them. I have been naughty taking a bit of BBC intellectual property and posting it on to my blog. But as Sieghart says, not only are we complicit in our unconcious bias on a daily basis (the conscious bias is another question), but we must find ways of exposing ourselves to our biases on a daily basis also. So here goes:
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
So, how did you get on?
If readers want to try something else, go to the Harvard Implicit Bias project website and do the test. I did it myself (before the Analysis programme) expecting the worst. I came out of it neutral. But as my failure in Scenarios 1 and 2 demonstrates, there are no laurels to rest on.
Be informed 